Mackenzie+Magee's+Think+Tank

In //Getting it Right// Chapter 3, Smith and Wilhelm argue that teachers should focus less on grammar in their students’ writing in order to promote complex, adventurous writing styles. In support of this, Smith and Wilhelm assert that students must make mistakes in order to grow in the art of writing: “in school, students should be challenged to learn and do new things, and that will require making mistakes (Smith and Wilhelm 2007). If corrected too frequently, students will retreat into simple sentences and avoid the rich, nuanced structures they can only achieve through experimentation. This is caused in part by “sensory overload,” where students are given too many rules to follow and become too overwhelmed to perform at all. Smith and Wilhelms’ alternative method to teaching writing emphasizes learning from the experts rather than memorizing grammar rules:”…if you are uncertain whether a rule reflects real language use, just take down a book from a favorite author and read several pages. If you find the rule violated, it is almost certainly a mythrule and does not pass the test” (2007). While the idea that our favorite authors do not follow strict grammar etiquette is striking, so is the notion of writing as a reflection of “real language use.” This reminds me of the dictionary’s function as a record of common language use over time rather than a definitive list of word meanings. As a teacher who overhears many teenage conversations that seem sometimes indiscernible, it is easy to forget that my students are speaking a language that is probably common and familiar to them, and that the dictionary is not the solemn word of correct diction. I agree with Smith and Wilhelm that teaching writing is about exposing students to expert writers, more so than it is creating perfect grammar machines. Though this chapter does not make it explicit, by exposing students to expert writers I mean having them read often and with a discerning eye in order to learn how to write. I believe that when one is moved by a beautiful piece of writing, one is more motivated to write a beautiful piece of writing. When this creative expression comes at the expense of typical grammar usage, it is still valuable for an individual’s development as a writer. Though I agree with Smith and Wilhelm’s assertions that grammar instruction should be deemphasized and structured into a hierarchy of importance, I do believe that teaching the language of grammar rules and structures is important and should be taught in schools, though perhaps not directly alongside typical writing instruction. Instead, perhaps instructors could treat grammar lessons as more of a linguistic study at an earlier age in school, and reserve writing lessons for focusing on constructing main ideas and emulating expert writers. This raises the question, however, of how important knowing the names of grammar structures is. If students can write complex sentences, does it matter whether or not they can identify what type of sentence it is? My opinion is that it does not, unless the student’s future career would benefit from it. However, it is important for students to understand why a sentence is considered correct or incorrect in Standard English, because, as the academic structure stands in the U.S., students must show some mastery of Standard English in order to succeed. If students are not taught the reasons for abiding by certain grammar rules in Standard English, they will likely continue making the same mistakes.